RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume V, Issue 361, 7 May 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, May 5. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Maclean v. Baraliill. — This was a claim of L 8 45, ...the difference between the original purchase and re-sale of two cargoboats. sold at auction by the plaintiff. The facts stated by the plaintiff were that on the 31st March he sold at auction two cargo-boats, which were knocked down to the defeudant for 1/30 ; but the defendant ajterwar-ds refused to take delivery of them, because the working gear was not in them, Plaintiff then to]d defendant that if he did not take delivery, the boats would be re-sold at his risk. They were re-sold on the 25th April, the nett proceeds of which amounted to L 2 1165, and the balance was now sued for. The conr ditions under which the boats were sold was that all purchases were to be taken delivery of immediately on the fall of the hammer, Cross-examined : The boats were sold on account of the trustees in the estate of Montgomery and Co, He did not know whether defendant was present wh§n the. conditions of sale were read over, but he believed he was. The catalogue of the property was not annexed to the conditions, of sale, and the defendant did not sign them. The defendant afterwards refused to take delivery of tho boats unless the gear was given with them, but the sale did not include the gear ; the boats were sold a,s they lay on the river bank, Mr Guinness, for the defendant, moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff sued in his own name, and not as agent of the vendor, and in no such case could the, plaintiff's signature bind the defendant. The Magistrate intimated his intentiqn to resume the case on the nonsuit point, as it was one of importance, affecting ail auction sales, but the case might go on subject to the point raised. The defence was that the goods sold were represented to be of a certain quality and' description, but they were afterwarcg found not to be of that quality, and the defendantrefused to take delivery of them. The auctioneer stated at the sale that the whole working gear went with the boats, and he laid great stress on the fact that they contained oars, sails, tarpaulins, &c. The defendant saw only one of the boats at the time ; but when he saw the other, and that there was no gear in it, he refused to take delivery, and he never considered that the boats belonged to him. He had refused offers to let them, because he thought they were not his property. Judgment was reserved until Thursday morning. Kennedy Bros. v. John Wakefield. — This was a claim for L 9 12s 6d, money advanced in Melbourne to bring the defendant co New Zealand. This action arose out of a case which waa decided in the Court last week wherein the present defendant sued, and obtained judgment against the plaintiffs for wrongful dismissal. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs. Harper v. Girdwood.— This was a claim of LI 16s, for labor done in putting up hurdles on the race-course for a private match, on or about the 9th April. The plaintiff stated that the defendant employed him to put up the hurdles, and that in order to do so in time he had employed another man, to whom he had paid 18s. The defendant paid into Court 12s for one day's labor, stating that the work could have easily been done in half a day, and he gave the plaintiff no authority to employ labor on his account. Judgment for amount paid into Court and the cost of the summons. Judgments by default were given in the following cases :— Ccissius and Comiskey v. Bolton, L 22 2s 8d ; same v. Eugene O'Donnell, Ll3 17s ; J. T. Fitzgerald v Timothy Hunt, L 8 ]s 6d.